Film Suggestions

[jablankenship]

I am hiking in the Alps in September. Does anyone have any recommendations for color slide or negative film for mountain landscapes? If I use slide film should I use one that has a warm balance? I will using an MP with a 35mm lens and either a 50mm or a 90mm lens. Thanks for any suggestions.

[Michael Hiles]

I can usually be relied on to recommend Kodachrome - particularly since you are in the United States where processing is easy. Rich colours, supremely sharp, archival properties. Still the best slide film.

[rob_x2004]

which 35? I found the summilux a fraction problematic if shooting anywhere towards teh sun. Brightness itself isnt a problem, other than running out of shutter speed and f/stop, its if you need detail like when your subjects faces are sitting in shadow. I am happier shooting 100iso for the latitude. UV filters might help a bit, but then its a thin element so watch the morning condensation thing.

[jacarape]

Originally Posted by jablankenship

I am hiking in the Alps in September. Does anyone have any recommendations for color slide or negative film for mountain landscapes? If I use slide film should I use one that has a warm balance? I will using an MP with a 35mm lens and either a 50mm or a 90mm lens. Thanks for any suggestions.

I would have some Reala in as I like it to help control contrast is some scenes, along with the K64.

[santila]

Print film:
ASA 100 Fuji Reala
ASA 400 Kodak Ultra 400

[rob_x2004]

Santila, how, when would you use 400 in the alps? Also whats it like with contrasty light?

[NZDavid]

On my European trip, which included Switzerland, I used M6 plus 35 'cron ASPH with a combination of Kodak E100G and GX, Fuji Astia 100F and Agfachrome RSX50 which I was using up. As expected, the Astia and Agfa were very neutral, Kodak somewhat brighter but pleasing. But the critical extra accessory was this: a B+W UV filter. It cut through the haze, in fact amazingly so. There was a lot of haze in the mountains above Locarno and Luzern in September and at the time I wondered if some shots were worth bothering about. When I saw the slides later on I discovered detail I just didn't recall having seen.

By contrast, here in New Zealand our skies are very clear (and no constant contrails, either), so light does vary markedly from country to country. I didn't have a problem with underexposure, but it pays to meter carefully, use a lenshood at all time and watch for flare.

[rob_x2004]

Originally Posted by NZDavid

... a B+W UV filter. It cut through the haze, in fact amazingly so.

Thanks thats worth knowing. Shooting through haze, low cloud and mist is a real trial with the Summilux probably even more so with the asph. Ron posted some car shots through the fog with the Summicron asph and they were pretty staggering.

Originally Posted by NZDavid

By contrast, here in New Zealand our skies are very clear ... I didn't have a problem with underexposure, but it pays to meter carefully, use a lenshood at all time and watch for flare.

Leica lenses seem to render very well in low light and soft light. Closed down, really harsh light is fine providing there arent too many stops difference in the frame. My biggest drama by far is getting subject detail when the subject is in shadow. That for me is where something like the R9 would come to the fore with its high speed synch with a small flash...like Leicas SF24. With the MP....youve kind of had it with only fiftieth. Kiwi mountaintop light I found can be a real trial to manage, specially if you arent a five am catch the morning light sort of person. I can well understand the hundred or less than iso.

[Dan States]

Actually all modern Leica lenses have coating called Absorban that acts as a UV filter.

Regarding film, do you want prints or do you plan to project? If prints Reala can't be beat. Slide film will be to your taste. If you plan to scan I'd stick with C41 films.

Best wishes
Dan

[hamey]

As a slide user, I do like the Kodak E100G or GX, and on cloudy days I prefer
the VS however Fuji films are also Excellent.

Good Luck and have a wonderful trip.

Ken.

[NZDavid]

<Kiwi mountain light I found can be a real trial to manage.> Absolutely, Rob! In fact, any light in NZ. Really strong sunlight and harsh shadows. But it's clear with a neutral color temperature. And some of the strongest UV in the world. Similar to Hawaii. But that goes equally for all mountain areas. Take your suntan lotion.

There's a huge difference in the quality of light from country to country. For example, southern Europe also has strong light, but not quite as strong as NZ. In the US, light varies greatly from region to region and depending on the time of year. In northern Europe and Britain especially, light is softer. One reason, perhaps, I haven't related well to Velvia. It may boost colors when the sky is overcast but when colors are already strong and clear I find it goes overboard. Velvia may be better at 40 ISO than 50 ISO, but it's just not my thing.

Fuji Astia has very fine grain and handles shadow areas superbly. Fuji Provia is nice, too, but blueish in shadow areas. I also like Kodak 100G.

Do take lots of film, spare batteries, lots of pictures, and enough ready cash for yummy local food and drink. And don't take too much luggage, travel light! Switzerland and Germany now seem to be a lot cheaper than Italy. Rail is a great way to go. Have fun!

David
David Killick, Freelance Journalist and Photographer, New Zealand

[santila]

ISO 400 film would be your discreation, cloudy, overcast days, late into the evening for wildlife, otherwise stick with Reala 100.

[thomasw_]

I recommend Kodachrome 64 for all your colour needs ... it is the best colour film unless you want saturated colours as in Velvia 50, etc.. For BW, try shooting some landscapes with Adox CMS 20; a fabulous high resolution film with a wonderful tonality. Otherwise, I recommend Ilford's PanF+ 50 and, in the evenings, TriX 400 @ 320 or 250. I used these films on hike through the Canadian Rockies and they worked well for me. But bear in mind I like these films...you have to select films you like

[darkstar2004]

For slide film, I'd go with Fuji Velvia 50.

With Velvia, there are two issues that you have to address - uniform lighting of your scene and reciprocity. Uniform lighting is critical or else you get blacked out shadow areas or blown out highlights, as with any slide film. If you just can't avoid high contrast scenes, shoot off a tripod and make one exposure for the highlights, one for the shadows and combine them in photoshop when you print. The tripod will keep both slides in register.

As far as reciprocity, compensation for Velvia 50 is not an issue until you exceed shutter speeds of 3 seconds. After that, compensation is as follows:

4 sec. +1/3ev
8 sec. +1/2ev
16 sec. +2/3ev
32 sec. +1ev
64 sec. not recommended

Velvia 100 is the king of long exposures and takes over where Velvia 50 leaves off. Compensation is as follows:

1-60 sec. 0
2 min. +1/3ev
4 min. +1/2ev with 2.5 magenta filter
8 min. +2/3ev with 2.5 magenta filter

The above info. was taken from Fuji's website, BTW.

I prefer Velvia 50 over 100 for anything that has subtle, pastel colors such as sunsets, sunrises and flowers - 100 is very good on saturated colors, but comes up short on pastels.

Why not use print film? Regarding color rendering, there simply is no compairson, that's why. That's what I have found anyway, and as a result I have shot Veliva for fifteen years.

I'll use C41 fim for family gatherings and other non-serious uses, but when I make color images for serious imagemaking, only Velvia enters my cameras.

It is simply the best in terms of color rendition. It will do things that no other film can do.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by darkstar2004

It is simply the best in terms of colour rendition. It will do things that no other film can do.

But it isn't very accurate is it? Can't disagree with the second sentence.

[darkstar2004]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

But it isn't very accurate is it? Can't disagree with the second sentence.

If my choices are to use an "accurate" film which produces a bland print with flat color or to use Velvia which produces a stunning print with vivid color, I'll take stunning and vivid for my landscape, travel & abstract work.

The only reason I would use an "accurate" film (Astia) is if I were making images of products or people for a client and the client didn't like the color pallette of Velvia.

"Accurate" color is very low on the list of things that make for an interesting image; in fact, "accurate" color can be thoroughly boring.

JMHO...

[rob_x2004]

What are your thoughts on provia?

[NZDavid]

It's easy to boost contrast and saturation later on, but you can't add detail that isn't there. Astia has excellent shadow detail. It also scans very well, and projects well. It's really more than a portrait film. That's just my experience, and of course everyone's preferences vary.

Having a squiz at old Kodachromes, yes they are very good and certainly keep well, but I think they may be over-rated. The blacks are very black with no shadow detail at all. A very high contrast film. But that can work well with some scenics. Again, it boils down to personal favorites.

[honcho]

Originally Posted by darkstar2004

If my choices are to use an "accurate" film which produces a bland print with flat color or to use Velvia which produces a stunning print with vivid color, I'll take stunning and vivid for my landscape, travel & abstract work......

......."Accurate" color is very low on the list of things that make for an interesting image; in fact, "accurate" color can be thoroughly boring.

I absolutely agree, especially with the last sentence. Since when did creativity end with the choice of emulsion when filters have always been available and especially since having the option to work with digital files post capture?

[darkstar2004]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

What are your thoughts on provia?

I have used a bit of Provia, although it has been a while back. I didn't really care for it - I like the color rendition of Velvia much better.